How to: The Non-state Solution for a Libertarian 'Marriage'

[dannno]

Subjects: House, kids, assets

Go.

 

[PierzStyx]

All decided by contract. Well, maybe not the kids.

 

[dannno]

All decided by contract. Well, maybe not the kids.

I'm interested in more specifics for an actual implementation.

Like if one of the persons makes more money and is putting more into the house, things like that.

Also how you handle buying a house, putting in both people's name, taxes, any official titles awarded by the state that you can recognize, etc.

 

[Voluntary Man]

i don't understand the question. are you trying to determine the best way to protect your assests and parental rights, if things don't work out? it seems to me that your best protection is having a vagina. otherwise, you're pretty much screwed, in the US courts, anyway, with or without a license.

in my opinion, you just do it, no license, no contracts. you and your intended just agree on what marriage is and live it. if you aren't committed, a piece of paper will only make you bitter.

disclaimer: that's not what i did, but i didn't know any better, at the time. however, my marriage is not defined by the laws of the land; it's defined by my beliefs and my wife's beliefs, and our commitment to each other and our children. the state can go consummate itself.

 

[dannno]

i don't understand the question. are you trying to determine the best way to protect your assests and parental rights, if things don't work out? it seems to me that your best protection is having a vagina. otherwise, you're pretty much screwed, in the US courts, anyway, with or without a license.

in my opinion, you just do it, no license, no contracts. you and your intended just agree on what marriage is and live it. if you aren't committed, a piece of paper will only make you bitter.

disclaimer: that's not what i did, but i didn't know any better, at the time. however, my marriage is not defined by the laws of the land; it's defined by my beliefs and my wife's beliefs, and our commitment to each other and our children. the state can go consummate itself.

Ok, but what are the logistics, of say, buying a house with your sister when your sister is earning less than you?

Also, how do you do all this in a way that isn't degrading and soul-less to the lesser bread winner, but also fair to them?

 

[Voluntary Man]

Ok, but what are the logistics, of say, buying a house with your sister when your sister is earning less than you?

Also, how do you do all this in a way that isn't degrading and soul-less to the lesser bread winner, but also fair to them?

i thought the question was about marriage. you aren't marrying your sister, are you?



anyway, i wouldn't buy a house with my sister. i didn't even buy one "with" my wife; i bought one for her.

regardless, obviously, if you're mutually purchasing property, you better consult an expert in real estate law. legally, i believe, if both your names are on the deed, you're 50/50 shareholders in the property, no matter what you actually contributed. if you're planning a different arrangement, you need to talk to a lawyer.

 

[Noble Savage]

Houses kids assets relationships all hinder a mans ability to do as he pleases. When you are "held" accountable for nouns, verbs are limited.

 

[dannno]

i thought the question was about marriage. you aren't marrying your sister, are you?

Well I'm trying to get all these complex questions answered and all I hear in reply is "contracts!" which kind of sucks trying to make all these complex contracts with someone you're in love with.

On the one hand, I kind of like the idea of the state marriage contract because you don't have negotiate a bunch of stuff, you just sign it.. but on the other hand the state has the monopoly on the contract and I don't agree with all of the terms.

One idea I've had is that if we had no government involved in marriage, you would have private law firms that provided various standard marriage contracts. That way you could read through them and choose rather than negotiating a whole new contract about all of the potential things that will happen if you break up from scratch.

anyway, i wouldn't buy a house with my sister.

Well for one that might be because you're married. I don't even have a sister, my point was, if someone had a sister who made less money but was contributing to the mortgage but the brother is contributing more, what type of legal agreements are common that might handle that situation? I was trying to get their thinking gears in motion.

i didn't even buy one "with" my wife; i bought one for her.

Well that's nice. I imagine you have kids, so really you bought the house for your wife to raise your kids. Did you buy a house for her before she was pregnant?

regardless, obviously, if you're mutually purchasing property, you better consult an expert in real estate law. legally, i believe, if both your names are on the deed, you're 50/50 shareholders in the property, no matter what you actually contributed. if you're planning a different arrangement, you need to talk to a lawyer.

Ok, that's some good info.



Now does anybody have any suggestions on how to handle the situation with the parents? So your fiance's family finds out you two are getting married and they are spending a bunch on the wedding, but the groom 'refuses' to sign a marriage contract. They are going to argue for the marriage contract. The groom might receive tax benefits, what other benefits would they receive that the parents will argue for? How can I receive similar benefits without the marriage contract?

I want to put my 'wife' on my company's health insurance, but we aren't married. So is that out of the question as well?

One of the things I'm trying to get at, here, is that the state marriage MIGHT be more beneficial due to the fact that there are no free market options for those who don't get the state license.... yet. Is it possible in the current environment to augment a man/woman relationship with other legal groundings that would help mirror some of these benefits that would be available in some form in the free market but aren't yet?

 

[Voluntary Man]

Well I'm trying to get all these complex questions answered and all I hear in reply is "contracts!" which kind of sucks trying to make all these complex contracts with someone you're in love with.

On the one hand, I kind of like the idea of the state marriage contract because you don't have negotiate a bunch of stuff, you just sign it.. but on the other hand the state has the monopoly on the contract and I don't agree with all of the terms.

One idea I've had is that if we had no government involved in marriage, you would have private law firms that provided various standard marriage contracts. That way you could read through them and choose rather than negotiating a whole new contract about all of the potential things that will happen if you break up from scratch.





Well for one that might be because you're married. I don't even have a sister, my point was, if someone had a sister who made less money but was contributing to the mortgage but the brother is contributing more, what type of legal agreements are common that might handle that situation? I was trying to get their thinking gears in motion.






Well that's nice. I imagine you have kids, so really you bought the house for your wife to raise your kids. Did you buy a house for her before she was pregnant?






Ok, that's some good info.



Now does anybody have any suggestions on how to handle the situation with the parents? So your fiance's family finds out you two are getting married and they are spending a bunch on the wedding, but the groom 'refuses' to sign a marriage contract. They are going to argue for the marriage contract. The groom might receive tax benefits, what other benefits would they receive that the parents will argue for? How can I receive similar benefits without the marriage contract?

I want to put my 'wife' on my company's health insurance, but we aren't married. So is that out of the question as well?

One of the things I'm trying to get at, here, is that the state marriage MIGHT be more beneficial due to the fact that there are no free market options for those who don't get the state license.... yet. Is it possible in the current environment to augment a man/woman relationship with other legal groundings that would help mirror some of these benefits that would be available in some form in the free market but aren't yet?

let's just be realistic: if you're a man, married, and (especially) a father, if you divorce, you're wife will get the house. so, just buy her the house, and deal with it.

as far as insurance goes, i have never been asked for a marriage license/certificate, in order to add my wife to insurance. I'm guessing, so long as you keep a lid on the fact that you are married without a license/certificate, you may not be asked to produce evidence of your union.

 

[dannno]

bump

 

[Lindsey]

I'm interested in more specifics for an actual implementation.

Like if one of the persons makes more money and is putting more into the house, things like that.

Also how you handle buying a house, putting in both people's name, taxes, any official titles awarded by the state that you can recognize, etc.

Danno -

Thanks for the rep. I am responding per your request. I'm not sure how to extrapolate for a larger group, but I can answer on a personal level. I really don't think there should be "rules" or general principles for a "libertarian marriage" - I think that each couple should work out the logistics for themselves - only they know their situation.

Income - we have had 3 different situations:
1. Him making more.
2. Me making more.
3. Creating wealth together.

Basically in all situations we each more or less handled the household necessities on a 50/50 basis, regardless of each income. We basically tried to live at a standard where it was possible for each of us to contribute 50%. There were times that were exceptions, but generally living within the lower end of our means makes this an agreeable way to handle expenses at most times. Admittedly, it's not always smooth, he's tends to be a bit more of a spender than I am, and really we just had to work out b/n us acceptable levels of spending.

Buying a house - we have rented our house. The lease is in his name and the utilities are a mix. I suppose if we ever do decide to buy, we'll go the route of putting it into whomever's name(s) is most advantageous financially - the same way I imagine most married couples choose.

Taxes - we file our personal income taxes as single persons.

Official Titles - if PA still recognized common law, I suppose we would fall under that. We are not seeking to have our relationship validated by any sort of title given by an outside entity.

Although I did get him approved by a past company I worked for as a domestic partner, so I could cover him on my dental plan. And that "domestic partnership" turned out to be helpful, because when he had a death in his family then I was eligible for the bereavement time to be with them.

Power of Attorney, Wills, Living Wills - these are areas we actively choose to draw up contracts. Even though, we both trust each other's family's to be able to make decisions regarding our care, we wanted to make sure we were in control for ourselves and then for one another and that decisions wouldn't be left to hospital staff if our families couldn't get there.

Beneficiaries - not being married means I could change my beneficiary on my 401K without his consent. Not that I plan to, but it's something that is less regulated by not being married so I thought I'd mention it.

That's all I can think of to go into right now. But I again, I really want to emphasize that these decisions should be left up to individuals involved to make. Creating incentives/dis-incentives for people to have their relationships recognized is a slippery slope. As far as I am concerned, we know what is best for us better than any outside entity would, and as such I reject the notion of a "libertarian marriage."

 

[dannno]

^That's along the lines of what I was looking for, thanks

 

[Kluge]

Missed this thread. We're non-state married. Works just fine.

If we should ever split up, which I doubt, we already agreed that I'd get the house and the kid, and he'd live in the garage. No worries, it's heated. We're buying 30 acres, so if things got uncomfortable, he could always plop a house down somewhere further away or move.

My philosophy is that if you aren't happy with a relationship and can't see yourself being happy in it, move on. No need to harm the other person in the process, plus, he's the father of my child--I wouldn't want to harm him. The only thing I can see that may cause some problems is if he started seeing someone else who wanted to play mommy to my kid--that would be a no-go unless I actually got to know and respect that other person, and I would resent having this other person pushed into my life.

 

[Luciconsort]

let's just be realistic: if you're a man, married, and (especially) a father, if you divorce, you're wife will get the house. so, just buy her the house, and deal with it.

as far as insurance goes, i have never been asked for a marriage license/certificate, in order to add my wife to insurance. I'm guessing, so long as you keep a lid on the fact that you are married without a license/certificate, you may not be asked to produce evidence of your union.

I had to provide a notarized copy of our marriage license and a copy of my daughters birth cert to put them on my insurance at work when she quit workin. prolly differs by company. I don't think it had anything to do with law just the insurance company's satisfaction.

 

[roho76]

Put all your assets into gold burry it and give your wife/kids a copy of the map.